(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Hobson’s ‘Proof’ Not Convincing To Reader

Posted: June 20, 2013 at 2 a.m.

I was saddened to see Art Hobson’s views of what passes for science in Sunday’s paper (June 16), but I was glad to see that at least it was in the Opinion Section. His “Brief History” was almost totally unproven, unscientific opinion.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 06/20/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

COMMENTARY: Master Plan Foiled By New Wrinkle

This is going to come as a shock to anyone even remotely familiar with his history, but Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones is almost 70 years old. Read »

Next Story »

DEAR ABBY: Mom Should Be Guarded Of Gun-Totin...

Dear Abby: The letter you printed from “Gun-Shy in South Carolina” (March 5), about the antics of her gun-toting, alcoholic father-in-law, caught my attention. I’m a former... Read »

Bill,

With your mind set it would be impossible to convince you that water is wet. Evolution is the one thing that can't be disproved, to ignor this shows a strong belief in religion. Religion is the worst hoax ever to befall mankind.

GO
RED PIG

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 20, 2013 at 4:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr. Corbin has attempted to refute a vast body of science with a few childish anecdotes. Anyone who thinks the formation of galaxies can be compared with tossing a handful of dirt into the air is hopelessly ignorant.

Maybe that's too harsh. Mr. Corbin's ignorance may not actually be hopeless. All that's required is some education. Go to the university and take a few classes in physics and biology, Bill.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

June 20, 2013 at 7:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Right on, Mr. Corbin. I have always said the bang theory is like blowing up your house and having the house of your dreams fall in place.

Evolution is much the same. Life forms do not get better with time, but worse. The whole theory is based on mutations, which are almost always for the worse. Man is man and animal is still animal, just like God created. Good article.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 8:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Myce,

So what are you saying , humans are fish ?

GO DARWIN

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 20, 2013 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Honestly, how does this get printed? Which editor sat down and said, "Hey this would be a good counter-point to any logical, scientific opinions we might get." Just a heads up ADG, you can't balance anything on the other end of the scale from crazy.

Dust doesn't form new planets when you toss it into the wind because we're ALREADY ON a planet with a prevailing gravitational field. Without that, every particle's gravitational field has a much more significant effect on the others causing them to coalesce. As a matter of fact, this still happens in places in our universe known as nebulae, massive clouds of gas and dust, usually many times the size of our solar system. The gas and dust there coalesce into stars, we know this happens, we've seen it happening. To deny what is standing in front of you, staring you in the face is not rational or logical or intelligent, it's insane.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 20, 2013 at 9:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What Bill Corbin is talking about is not evolution,. Evolution is not about the origins of the planet or the origins of life but about how life has evolved into various species.
Most of the people who say they are agin it seem to have no conception of what it is.
For instance MyCent says "Life forms do not get better with time, but worse."
By that reasoning we are devolving into simpler forms. and eventually will become one-celled creatures..

Posted by: Coralie

June 20, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No, Coralie, that also would be evolution, only backwards. God created us in the best form, and as time past, our life expectancy has gone down. Now, someone is going to say it has gone up, but only slightly, if at all, in the last century because of disease control, but still is down.

You do twist things. Evolution is based on mutations, which are, as I said, almost always for the worse. That doesn't endorse evolution forward or backwards.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

myc, if you don't fully understand a concept, you should avoid speaking as though you do. Life expectancy is not an accurate measure of whether a species has evolved, as having a longer life span is not necessarily a beneficial attribute to passing on your genes.

While you are correct about the fact that most mutations are not beneficial to a species, some sure are. While those that hinder an individual's survivability will usually keep it from passing its genetic material on to the next generation, from time to time an individual is born with a mutation which provides a benefit to its survivability, generally making it more likely to pass its genes (and subsequently its beneficial mutation) on to its offspring. We can see this adaptive effect most prevalently in virii and bacteria which can spawn several hundred generations over the course of a day.

How is it that antibiotics have been decreasing in effectiveness against disease? It's certainly not because God has made it so. It's because we have been giving bacteria a taste of them over several decades, and the bacteria have adapted (read: evolved) to be resistant to said antibiotics. Those individuals who are not resistant to the drugs are killed by them, while those who have "mutated" live to pass this resistance to their offspring.

This is not magic, the bacteria didn't "decide" to be resistant. Many variants of the species died off wholesale in the process, but that does not change the FACT that they are becoming resistant to our drugs, and the FACT that this was not an attribute that they had 50 years ago.

The FACT is, life forms do not get better OR worse over time, they simply adapt to an environment that allows them to better pass on their genetic material, over time.

In my (speculative) opinion, we will see very little by way of human evolution in the future due to the fact that we have adapted to the point at which we can manipulate our environment to suit our needs, rather than adapting to the constraints of a fixed environment.

This is Biology 101 people, step your game up or step out of the way, because the fact train is rolling through.

GO
JOE

G.I. JOE.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 20, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"While you are correct about the fact that most mutations are not beneficial to a species, some sure are"

Which ones would those be, since, as a creationist, I believe God created man in perfect form to begin with.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, how about that thumb you get so much use out of? Though it doesn't fit with your "beliefs," primates didn't always have opposable thumbs. However, I can assure you the first primate whose fifth finger grew from the side of its hand instead of the top was able to pass along his genes very well, as the lady primates would have had a much harder time bucking his advances.

Your belief in a concept does not make it valid. What makes it valid is repeatability. If you figure out how spontaneous creation happened and publish your theory and experiment in a repeatable fashion, please do so, you may very well be the new leader of the planet. Until then, the rest of us will stick to the science we can try for ourselves, like exposing non-resistant strains of bacteria to antibiotics and seeing how they become resistant in only a few hundred thousand generations.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 20, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Those readers who actually value facts would not be amused with the posts that emanate from Little We, R-ent Wise and the other shills of Art Hobson's self-worship.

For example, one finds it ironic that one would opine that mankind evolves (or adapts) to the environment whilst screaming like Chicken Little about the sky falling when claiming global warming in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary. Of course, Art doesn't concern himself with facts or even bothers himself with the scientific method (which most of us learned in Biology 101, if not before, R-ent) that requires a theory to be tested before it becomes fact.

One marvels at the fact that those who claim adherence to "science" are more fanatically wedded to their cult than most adherents of the Taliban. Sadly, they are apparently incapable of recognizing facts, much less are they interested in advancing them.

Posted by: IrishMensa

June 20, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, IrishMensa.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 3:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If YOU knew anything about the scientific method, you would understand that theories do not become facts, but instead are constructs used to explain facts. If you were aware of what a fact was, you would also know that what is and is not fact is not up for debate, you would know that facts are not the why or the how, but the what. Facts are observable and inalienable. It is a FACT that globally, the trend in temperature is rising. You can look at all kinds of graphs (whether you'd be able to understand them or not remains to be seen) plotting NOAA temperature data taken from sites all over the planet over many years that show global average temperature is rising. The THEORY would be why this change is taking place. One theory that has a large amount of support behind it is that this warming trend is caused by the increased emission of greenhouse gasses due to the industrialization of the planet over the last 100+ years. Other THEORIES conclude that this warming trend is normal on a planetary timeline. These theories are all supported by observed evidence, some much more so than others. We can't say yet that any of these theories are "wrong" because for the most part they are all supported by some evidence, but we can say, with a limited margin of error, that the evidence agrees with the prevailing theory. Science is shades of grey, like most things, not black and white as you would like it to be.

Also, nice try on the nickname ID, but I'm not sure I understand where you were going with it. Are you trying to say that I Rent my living accommodations? I gotta say, I'm not really that put out by it, you can do better than that.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 20, 2013 at 4:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, meant IM. I have a hard time not using the nickname Alpha gave you.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 20, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IrishMensa is the most intelligent poster on this thread, even more intelligent than ME!

Posted by: JailBird

June 20, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Uh oh, Money's got something to say. Now ya'll figures boastin in a roll bread.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 20, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Sadly, they are apparently incapable of recognizing facts, much less are they interested in advancing them."
If you really cared about that, you would present facts yourself. As it is, you're inventing a problem, then refusing to assist in solving it.

The hell of it is, IrishMensa claims the nickname by asserting that he is particularly intelligent for an Irishman. Talk about living an ethnic slur.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 20, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rwise talks about the processes that apply to "a species" and mycent responds "I believe God created man in perfect form to begin with."
There are a whole lot of other species besides humans. mycent, do you believe that God created all species in perfect form to begin with?
Why then did He allow so many to go extinct?
What about creatures such as dogs or domestic cats, which did not exist in their present form until humans tamed their ancestors and bred them into different varieties (acting like evolution).

Posted by: Coralie

June 20, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You still can't breed a cat with a dog, or others outside of their species. God has his laws.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent knows less about evolution than the average creationist and then thinks Abe Lincoln is a "founding father."

Irishmensa ignorantly thinks the term "scientific theory" is incompatible with the term "fact" (scientific theories explain facts, see heliocentric theory, germ theory, theory of general relativity, etc.).

Corbin thinks he's refuted something Dr. Hobson has said because when he throws a handful of dust in the air it doesn't self-gravitate into a ball.

Good grief what a pitiful pooling of ignorance. What if visitors were to come to the Greatest Country in the World(TM) and see such a public display? It's embarrassing stupidity, disgraceful really.

Rwise: "It is a FACT that globally, the trend in temperature is rising.">>

IR only does bluster and hit and run. He doesn't respond to feedback, engage after he's burped something up or run the risk of learning something new. The few times he's times tried that it didn't go well for him. And that's stating it nicely.

I've posted a great deal on the latest climate change science in the following thread and (in support of your claim) here is a specific post confirming the warming you refer to:

"7 Charts that make it clear the planet is warming fast"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

D.
-------------
"10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-In...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

June 20, 2013 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This was about all I needed to read to realize BILL CORBIN was repeating something he learned at Sunday school:

"It is impossible to go from inorganic material - dirt - to life by chance and natural processes."

I sure hope BILL never tries to grow something in "inorganic" dirt.

Posted by: cdawg

June 20, 2013 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's unusual for this newspaper to print a rebuttal letter so quickly, while the original submission is still up on the website:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/ju...

Please observe that Hobson begins by expressing regret that so many of us choose not to use our brains, preferring to deny extant reality with medieval beliefs, magical thinking and ignorance.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

June 20, 2013 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have lived down here for not quite 3 years, and I am amazed at the amount of ignorance that a significant part of the population wants to inflict on all of the population. I have no problem with people having their own personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, but the ones that are not based in reality should be kept personal. I don't know of anyone that is forcing any of you people to not have your beliefs.

Mr. Corbin, space was not limited for you to refute anything Mr. Hobson said, as you wasted what space you did use not refuting anything so far.

For you intelligent design believers (and the intelligent describes the designer, not the believers) that don't believe in evolution, a million years ago we didn't have horses. Today, we have horses. What evidence do you have about when horses just appeared on earth, put here in an instant by the intelligent designer? Did He create just one bred of horse, or did He just create the 300+ different breeds of horse all at the same time?

And why is your god so weak that he could not have created Man from the inorganic material of the universe and know he could do it with evolution? My God is not that weak, and apparently much more omniscient than your god.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 20, 2013 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Natural selection, not evolution. Its really dumb on the liberial side of the thread.

Posted by: JailBird

June 21, 2013 at 5:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mo,

Do you have any idea of what natural selection is, please explain to us what you think it is, and again stop avoiding what you have said as fact by hiding behind BS.

" A man is accepted into church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows "

Samuel Clemens

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 21, 2013 at 6:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, please Moneymyst, explain your statement of "really dumb".

Last I remember from my education, natural selection is a process that is part of evolution.

If you are not worried, especially about yourself, you should be.

I am not sure that anyone that thinks people from Alabama are winners would know anything about natural selection.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 21, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent says "You still can't breed [animals] outside of their species."
But a few species can cross.
"The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a tigress (Panthera tigris). Thus, it has parents with the same genus but of different species.....ligers typically grow larger than either parent species."
The hybrid offspring are fertile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Posted by: Coralie

June 21, 2013 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There are also polar bear/grizzly bear hybrids that occasionally occur in the wild.
Their ancestors diverged only 150,000 years ago.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an...

Posted by: Coralie

June 21, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Neanderthals and modern humans must have interbred, because there is evidence of Neanderthal genes in our DNA (up to about 4%).
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/marc...

Posted by: Coralie

June 21, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Did you liberals ever see the movie, Dumb and Dumber? If you did "really drumb" should be self-explainatory. If not go rent it.

Posted by: JailBird

June 21, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ouch Money, you gave us the deep burn on that one. /Sarcasm

Keep trying Troll-boy.

Posted by: Rwiseman

June 21, 2013 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Troll boy,

It's dumb not drumb.

GO
SPELL CHECK

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 21, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "You still can't breed a cat with a dog, or others outside of their species. God has his laws."
Of course male dogs try to breed with all sorts of things. Fortunately, a dogleg is only a sharp bend, and not some sort of weird hybrid.

Since animals breed according to God's laws, homosexual behavior must be part of God's law. Thank you for clearing that up. And please send the memo to Westboro Baptist Church-- they think that God hates homosexuals.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 21, 2013 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpa,

I don't know if it is true but I saw a news report that a Gay organization purchased a residence across the street from the Westboro Baptist Church and painted it with Gay Pride colors. I believe the report to be true, I say way to go !

GO
PAYBACK

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 22, 2013 at 4:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I don't know if it is true...."
Yes, it's true. Google "westboro rainbow house" (without quotation marks).

There is no reason in the world (other than a search engine filter) why a person with an Internet connection should say "I don't know if it is true".

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 22, 2013 at 1:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Al,

I guess you just took the gloves of, in RE " I don't know if it's true. " It may be that is simply what I wan't to say. So what's up with all the hostility ?

KMA

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 22, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's almost full moon.

Posted by: Coralie

June 22, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "So what's up with all the hostility ?"
Given the reasonableness with which the statement was made, I hardly see why you should take it to be hostile. As you can certainly attest, I can express myself in less equable terms. Indeed, I have done so, to you under your assorted previous screen names.

However, I thought it a worthy point to make, as you have recently posted a number of comments referring to facts, research and ignorance. It seems unreasonable to castigate others for not doing research or learn things, when you don't avail yourself of ample opportunity to easily do research and learn things.

Further, the statement was addressed not just to you, but to the same people you have castigated as well. Both male and female anserines are served with the same sauce.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 22, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You still can't breed a cat with a dog, or others outside of their species. God has his laws.<

But we can sure splice their genes.

Are we god yet?

Posted by: cdawg

June 22, 2013 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

alp,

I don't have any facts to back this up and I don't know if you have any close family, but if you do my bet is they try to avoid you as much as they can. You grumpy, cantankerous old f@rt.

Change is good.

GO
OBAMA

Posted by: continuetocancelme

June 23, 2013 at 3:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's still the full moon, riling folks up..
And it's a Supermoon (close to the Earth). Last Supermoon was in 1982, and the next 2043 (I won't be here ).
Did anybody see the moon the other night was a peachy-pink color?
Very unusual.

Posted by: Coralie

June 23, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I don't have any facts to back this up"
In this case, I wouldn't expect you to.

RE "I don't know if you have any close family, but if you do my bet is they try to avoid you as much as they can."
I'll ignore the fact that "close family" and "they try to avoid you" is an absurd juxtaposition, and instead offer the observation that all of the members of my immediate family tolerate each other in a workable balance.

RE "You grumpy, cantankerous old f@rt"
This from a guy who used to call himself "farter".

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 23, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Congrats South Korea for squshing a hog. Go girls!

Posted by: JailBird

June 23, 2013 at 6:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Park wins again, pigs lose. Things are right with the world.

Posted by: JailBird

June 24, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh I just found another species cross.
"A zeedonk (also spelled zedonk) (also known a zebrass, zebronkey, zonkey, zebadonk, zenkey or deebra) is an interspecies cross between a zebra and a donkey."
Lot of names for something that's pretty rare.

Posted by: Coralie

June 24, 2013 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Probably even more species can cross but they never run across each other in the wild.
As a zebra and a donkey don't live together on the savanna.

Posted by: Coralie

June 27, 2013 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )